Ask About Islam

[joelr]

You can bring all the Greek you want. so YOU say the "Greeks" knew about all this, IT WAS NEVER SHOWN TO THE WORLD? It should be blasted all over the world from this as you claim.

No way. I simply cannot believe how wrong this is and that I actually have to explain this in writing? I have to explain the actual historicity of Islam because apologists have confused you with ridiculous arguments.
Greek science was written down by Rome but they felt it was not as important -

"The apogee of Greek science in the works of Archimedes and Euclid coincided with the rise of Roman power in the Mediterranean. The Romans were deeply impressed by Greek art, literature, philosophy, and science, and after their conquest of Greece many Greek intellectuals served as household slaves tutoring noble Roman children. The Romans were a practical people, however, and, while they contemplated the Greek intellectual achievement with awe, they also could not help but ask what good it had done the Greeks. Roman common sense was what kept Rome great; science and philosophy were either ignored or relegated to rather low status. "
The spirit of independent research was quite foreign to the Roman mind, so scientific innovation ground to a halt. The scientific legacy of Greece was condensed and corrupted into Roman encyclopaedias whose major function was entertainment rather than enlightenment. "

Christianity emerged and was also not impressed
:
"So the early Christians approached the worldly wisdom of their time with ambivalence: on the one hand, the rhetoric and the arguments of ancient philosophy were snares and delusions that might mislead the simple and the unwary; "


The Greek knowledge was preserved because Christian thinkers felt it had some value:

"Ancient learning, then, did not die with the fall of Rome and the occupation of the Western Empire by tribes of Germanic barbarians. To be sure, the lamp of learning burned very feebly, but it did not go out. Monks in monasteries faithfully copied out classics of ancient thought and early Christianity and preserved them for posterity. Monasteries continued to teach the elements of ancient learning, for little beyond the elementary survived in the Latin West. In the East the Byzantine Empire remained strong, and there the ancient traditions continued. There was little original work done in the millennium following the fall of Rome, but the ancient texts were preserved along with knowledge of the ancient Greek language. This was to be a precious reservoir of learning for the Latin West in later centuries."

Then we get to Islam. :

"The torch of ancient learning passed first to one of the invading groups that helped bring down the Eastern Empire. In the 7th century the Arabs, inspired by their new religion, burst out of the Arabian peninsula and laid the foundations of an Islamic empire that eventually rivalled that of ancient Rome. To the Arabs, ancient science was a precious treasure. The Qurʿān, the sacred book of Islam, particularly praised medicine as an art close to God. Astronomy and astrology were believed to be one way of glimpsing what God willed for humankind. Contact with Hindu mathematics and the requirements of astronomy stimulated the study of numbers and of geometry. The writings of the Hellenes were, therefore, eagerly sought and translated, and thus much of the science of antiquity passed into Islamic culture. Greek medicine, Greek astronomy and astrology, and Greek mathematics, together with the great philosophical works of Plato and, particularly, Aristotle, were assimilated in Islam by the end of the 9th century. Nor did the Arabs stop with assimilation. They criticized and they innovated. Islamic astronomy and astrology were aided by the construction of great astronomical observatories that provided accurate observations against which the Ptolemaic predictions could be checked. Numbers fascinated Islamic thinkers, and this fascination served as the motivation for the creation of algebra (from Arabic al-jabr) and the study of algebraic functions."

Islamic philosophers were not like Roman and Christian thinkers, they valued science. God did not give them secret messages, they were smart people who valued science and actually read the information.

Now besides that, your original point was that maybe this information didn't make it to Islam. Well now we know it did. But what's truly bizarre is that you accept that Greek thinkers can come up with this information using their own intellect yet still want to insist a God had to tell Islamic theologians? As if they could not possibly also come up with this science?

How come they didn't accept it? They could translate parts of the Bible, yet leave this out? Galen dissected animals, mainly dogs and he had NO KNOWLEDGE about the development of the Fetus INSIDE. He had to dissect and find out things involving the human but did not know how it was done. Everyone knew they punished the women for not bringing the sex of the baby...the kings did this for many decades.

Advanced embryology in the Quran has been debunked. Even if they did come up with it, what's so weird about humans. doing science and learning? Was Galen getting messages from Zeus? (hint: no one is getting any help from deities)


"In fact the account of the different stages in embryology as described by the Qur'an is virtually identical to that taught by Galen, writing in Turkey around 150 A.D, who taught that the embryo developed in four stages.[3] The first is an unformed white conceptus like semen, the second a bloody vascularised foetus, the third when other features are mapped out but not fully formed, and the fourth when all the organs are well formed and joints freely moveable. Either the author of the Qur'an knew this when writing the Qur'an,
Much of the embryology in the Qur'an and Hadith can be traced directly back to the ancient Greeks. For example there is a hadith in which Muhammad says 'If a male's fluid prevails upon the female's substance, the child will be a male by Allah's decree, and when the substance of the female prevails upon the substance contributed by the male, a female child is formed.'[4] Muslims claim that this refers to X and Y chromosomes which determine the sex of an infant. A far more likely suggestion is that this is simply a reflection of the incorrect belief of Hippocrates that both men and women produce both male and female sperm, and the resulting sex of the child is determined by which sex's sperm overwhelms the other in strength or quantity.[5]

It is one thing for the ancient Greeks to be teaching all this, but how do we know that the material was familiar to the Arabs of Muhammad's day? Ali at-Tabari's 'Paradise of Wisdom',[6] written in about 850 AD, says that he was following the rules set down by Hippocrates and Aristotle when he wrote his treatise. The intelligentsia of Muhammad's time were very familiar both with Greek and Indian medicine. Indeed, a major work on the history of embryology which is cited in the references in The Developing Human devotes over 60 pages to ancient Greek embryology and less than one page to Arabic embryology, concluding that the Qur'an is merely 'a seventh-century echo of Aristotle'.[7] It is hardly surprising that the Islamic version of Prof Moore's book is not listed on the British Library catalogue and cannot be found in medical school libraries either in Britain or the US.

In conclusion then, there is not a single statement contained in the Qur'an relating to modern embryology that is not either scientifically incorrect or which was well known through direct observation by the ancient Greek physicians many centuries before the Qur'an was written. Far from proving the alleged divine credentials of the Qur'an, its embryological statements actually provide evidence for its human origins.


Embryology and the Qur'an

Women were treated like dogs and not even worth the effort in the Greek world. The Greeks also believed in Zues and other imaginary gods in their belief.

Women didn't have many rights. They still did good science and philosophy, what is your point? Yes the Greeks had myths. The Quran believes in Moses, Noah and another God of fiction - Yahweh. So what?

Embryology in the Quran IS IN DEPTH. No other book of God has that. You cannot compare.

Except we see that it isn't. Even if it was, don't you think humans can do science? Have you heard about humans doing science? Are you saying the writers of the Quran were completely incapable of doing the same science all other humans do?

Mohammad could not have known these facts about Human Development in the 7th century, over 1400 years ago, because most of them were not discovered until the 20th century.

Every mention of embryology is covered here and can be compared to Greek science. That is a fact. I would think at this point you would want to tell your associates that there is no need for false apologetics to promote your religion. The fact that they are easily debunked looks really bad.

Really? Another video? I debunked an entire video, not one example was truthful, I had to sit through 1 dozen lies and now you have another video? Are you saying THIS TIME he's not lying? Do you think it's maybe time for YOU to do the work? Which part of embryology mentioned in the Quran was not found in Greek science?
I don't think there is anything. But if there was, why couldn't the ISLAMIC SCIENTISTS have done some science? Why is that so much of a stretch to imagine they did some experiments and then when the Quran was written they put it in there?

 

[joelr]

Go ahead and make fun, but our findings in the Quran, that Allah has stated, has shown way before men even understood them.

No, I think men did understand the science written in the Quran. It looks like the Greeks understood them well.
I don't see the part where I'm "making fun"? I'm asking for things that you consider evidence. There is actual reasons why this science is there and actual sources. It isn't "making fun" just to use critical thinking and say no, I do not think that is good evidence. This is what you wanted, people to ask.

No other book has this claim of knowledge from 1400 years ago. so go ahead and make your jokes and laugh at Muslims and what they know and understand, for we know what Allah has said in the Quran.

Now it sounds like you are just repeating creeds and not really thinking for yourself at all? Of course other books have knowledge. Most of the theology is OT reworkings and as we have seen the Islamic thinkers were very interested in the Greek scientific information passed down from Rome.
You said to ask. So far the science you claim can "only be from God" all looks like it's actually from Greek? I'm pointing that out and you say I'm "laughing" and making "jokes"....WTF? Are you capable of a normal discussion?
Why are you giving me statements of faith? Yes I know you believe Allah said stuff and it's in the Quran? Just because a book says something doesn't mean it's true?

“(This is) a Book (the Qur’an) which We have sent down to you, full of blessings that they may ponder over its Verses, and that men of understanding may remember”
Saad 38:29

Uh huh, all scripture says it's divine and sent for man, that's how religious mythology is written. I get that. I don't think it's actually messages from a God. Do you have any idea how often Christians use verse to "prove" what they say is true? (it's a lot)

 

[Sheldon]

I don't see why. Billions of people are irrational, according to you.

Oh really, care to quote a single post of mine making any such claim? Do you really think you can post such obvious sophistry, and it will go unchallenged?

Anybody with even a smudge of common sense can see how irrational it is to think that somebody who thinks like you could be upsetting.

You're ruling yourself out then? Though the irony of you using the word irrational, in the same sentence you resort to an ad hominem fallacy is again palpable.

 

[Sheldon]

You think that your life experience and thinking ability is sufficient to determine the processes and mechanisms that produce universes, galaxies, planets, life, everything?
Gosh!

That's almost as funny as him invoking logic, given he manages to produce a logical fallacy in almost every single post. Even the one's where he is claiming to be reasoning in accordance with logic. Egad, but the mind boggles.

 

[joelr]

Naik (and other, similar, dishonest apologists) rely on the confirmation bias and appeal to authority of their audience. He knows they will never fact-check anything he says, so he can say anything. And anyone who points out his errors is met with "But he has memorised the whole Quran!" and "He's a doctor, are you?", , etc.
Just wait and see what kind of response you get from @MyM

Well I got a claim that the Greek science didn't make it to Islam. Historically this is false, it's actually the opposite, Islam tried in some ways to get out of the dark ages and embraced that science. They were very advanced compared to Christian cultures that looked for answers in scripture rather than science. But then during the Enlightenment the West turned towards science and secular philosophy and Islam went more into fundamentalism.

If I remember, for a time the Islamic Caliphate was progressive and had the majority of trade route control but when that changed they became more fundamentalist. I need to learn more on that however.

 

[MyM]

No way. I simply cannot believe how wrong this is and that I actually have to explain this in writing? I have to explain the actual historicity of Islam because apologists have confused you with ridiculous arguments.
Greek science was written down by Rome but they felt it was not as important -

"The apogee of Greek science in the works of Archimedes and Euclid coincided with the rise of Roman power in the Mediterranean. The Romans were deeply impressed by Greek art, literature, philosophy, and science, and after their conquest of Greece many Greek intellectuals served as household slaves tutoring noble Roman children. The Romans were a practical people, however, and, while they contemplated the Greek intellectual achievement with awe, they also could not help but ask what good it had done the Greeks. Roman common sense was what kept Rome great; science and philosophy were either ignored or relegated to rather low status. "
The spirit of independent research was quite foreign to the Roman mind, so scientific innovation ground to a halt. The scientific legacy of Greece was condensed and corrupted into Roman encyclopaedias whose major function was entertainment rather than enlightenment. "

Christianity emerged and was also not impressed
:
"So the early Christians approached the worldly wisdom of their time with ambivalence: on the one hand, the rhetoric and the arguments of ancient philosophy were snares and delusions that might mislead the simple and the unwary; "


The Greek knowledge was preserved because Christian thinkers felt it had some value:

"Ancient learning, then, did not die with the fall of Rome and the occupation of the Western Empire by tribes of Germanic barbarians. To be sure, the lamp of learning burned very feebly, but it did not go out. Monks in monasteries faithfully copied out classics of ancient thought and early Christianity and preserved them for posterity. Monasteries continued to teach the elements of ancient learning, for little beyond the elementary survived in the Latin West. In the East the Byzantine Empire remained strong, and there the ancient traditions continued. There was little original work done in the millennium following the fall of Rome, but the ancient texts were preserved along with knowledge of the ancient Greek language. This was to be a precious reservoir of learning for the Latin West in later centuries."

Then we get to Islam. :

"The torch of ancient learning passed first to one of the invading groups that helped bring down the Eastern Empire. In the 7th century the Arabs, inspired by their new religion, burst out of the Arabian peninsula and laid the foundations of an Islamic empire that eventually rivalled that of ancient Rome. To the Arabs, ancient science was a precious treasure. The Qurʿān, the sacred book of Islam, particularly praised medicine as an art close to God. Astronomy and astrology were believed to be one way of glimpsing what God willed for humankind. Contact with Hindu mathematics and the requirements of astronomy stimulated the study of numbers and of geometry. The writings of the Hellenes were, therefore, eagerly sought and translated, and thus much of the science of antiquity passed into Islamic culture. Greek medicine, Greek astronomy and astrology, and Greek mathematics, together with the great philosophical works of Plato and, particularly, Aristotle, were assimilated in Islam by the end of the 9th century. Nor did the Arabs stop with assimilation. They criticized and they innovated. Islamic astronomy and astrology were aided by the construction of great astronomical observatories that provided accurate observations against which the Ptolemaic predictions could be checked. Numbers fascinated Islamic thinkers, and this fascination served as the motivation for the creation of algebra (from Arabic al-jabr) and the study of algebraic functions."

Islamic philosophers were not like Roman and Christian thinkers, they valued science. God did not give them secret messages, they were smart people who valued science and actually read the information.

Now besides that, your original point was that maybe this information didn't make it to Islam. Well now we know it did. But what's truly bizarre is that you accept that Greek thinkers can come up with this information using their own intellect yet still want to insist a God had to tell Islamic theologians? As if they could not possibly also come up with this science?






Advanced embryology in the Quran has been debunked. Even if they did come up with it, what's so weird about humans. doing science and learning? Was Galen getting messages from Zeus? (hint: no one is getting any help from deities)


"In fact the account of the different stages in embryology as described by the Qur'an is virtually identical to that taught by Galen, writing in Turkey around 150 A.D, who taught that the embryo developed in four stages.[3] The first is an unformed white conceptus like semen, the second a bloody vascularised foetus, the third when other features are mapped out but not fully formed, and the fourth when all the organs are well formed and joints freely moveable. Either the author of the Qur'an knew this when writing the Qur'an,
Much of the embryology in the Qur'an and Hadith can be traced directly back to the ancient Greeks. For example there is a hadith in which Muhammad says 'If a male's fluid prevails upon the female's substance, the child will be a male by Allah's decree, and when the substance of the female prevails upon the substance contributed by the male, a female child is formed.'[4] Muslims claim that this refers to X and Y chromosomes which determine the sex of an infant. A far more likely suggestion is that this is simply a reflection of the incorrect belief of Hippocrates that both men and women produce both male and female sperm, and the resulting sex of the child is determined by which sex's sperm overwhelms the other in strength or quantity.[5]

It is one thing for the ancient Greeks to be teaching all this, but how do we know that the material was familiar to the Arabs of Muhammad's day? Ali at-Tabari's 'Paradise of Wisdom',[6] written in about 850 AD, says that he was following the rules set down by Hippocrates and Aristotle when he wrote his treatise. The intelligentsia of Muhammad's time were very familiar both with Greek and Indian medicine. Indeed, a major work on the history of embryology which is cited in the references in The Developing Human devotes over 60 pages to ancient Greek embryology and less than one page to Arabic embryology, concluding that the Qur'an is merely 'a seventh-century echo of Aristotle'.[7] It is hardly surprising that the Islamic version of Prof Moore's book is not listed on the British Library catalogue and cannot be found in medical school libraries either in Britain or the US.

In conclusion then, there is not a single statement contained in the Qur'an relating to modern embryology that is not either scientifically incorrect or which was well known through direct observation by the ancient Greek physicians many centuries before the Qur'an was written. Far from proving the alleged divine credentials of the Qur'an, its embryological statements actually provide evidence for its human origins.


Embryology and the Qur'an




Women didn't have many rights. They still did good science and philosophy, what is your point? Yes the Greeks had myths. The Quran believes in Moses, Noah and another God of fiction - Yahweh. So what?




Except we see that it isn't. Even if it was, don't you think humans can do science? Have you heard about humans doing science? Are you saying the writers of the Quran were completely incapable of doing the same science all other humans do?


Every mention of embryology is covered here and can be compared to Greek science. That is a fact. I would think at this point you would want to tell your associates that there is no need for false apologetics to promote your religion. The fact that they are easily debunked looks really bad.


Really? Another video? I debunked an entire video, not one example was truthful, I had to sit through 1 dozen lies and now you have another video? Are you saying THIS TIME he's not lying? Do you think it's maybe time for YOU to do the work? Which part of embryology mentioned in the Quran was not found in Greek science?
I don't think there is anything. But if there was, why couldn't the ISLAMIC SCIENTISTS have done some science? Why is that so much of a stretch to imagine they did some experiments and then when the Quran was written they put it in there?

 

[MyM]

No, I think men did understand the science written in the Quran. It looks like the Greeks understood them well.
I don't see the part where I'm "making fun"? I'm asking for things that you consider evidence. There is actual reasons why this science is there and actual sources. It isn't "making fun" just to use critical thinking and say no, I do not think that is good evidence. This is what you wanted, people to ask.




Now it sounds like you are just repeating creeds and not really thinking for yourself at all? Of course other books have knowledge. Most of the theology is OT reworkings and as we have seen the Islamic thinkers were very interested in the Greek scientific information passed down from Rome.
You said to ask. So far the science you claim can "only be from God" all looks like it's actually from Greek? I'm pointing that out and you say I'm "laughing" and making "jokes"....WTF? Are you capable of a normal discussion?
Why are you giving me statements of faith? Yes I know you believe Allah said stuff and it's in the Quran? Just because a book says something doesn't mean it's true?



Uh huh, all scripture says it's divine and sent for man, that's how religious mythology is written. I get that. I don't think it's actually messages from a God. Do you have any idea how often Christians use verse to "prove" what they say is true? (it's a lot)

 

[muhammad_isa]

The universe as we see it did not form "by accident".

There's something that we agree on.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You believe that a man does not need his wife's consent to have sex with her.
Sex without consent is "rape".
Not sure how much simpler I can make that.

No, it all depends on your definition of "rape".
If you take it to mean "violent assault", then naturally, marriage doesn't come into it.

I really don't think that men who violently assault their wives are equivalent to those that have sexual intercourse with their wives "without consent".
A marriage contract means nothing to you, it seems.
If a woman no longer respects her husband, she is entitled to divorce. She needs no reason. She has nothing to prove in Islam.

The whole point of having a marriage contract, is the concept of illicit relationships.
Naturally, as a disbeliever, you argue against its significance.
You make silly arguments about men and women requiring consent, when they have already "signed a contract".

 

[joelr]

You imply that morality is fixed according to your own perception of it.
Don't you find it strange that nations differ as to what they consider what is moral and what is not?
Similarly, such ideas have changed over time as well.

In other words, your summary of morality is incomplete .. manmade .. and deeply flawed.

Religions also differ on morals. Even among the same religion there are vast differences. In Christianity there are groups who completely disagree on interpretation about morals and even more so in Islam. The first 3 commandments in the OT are about how one cannot have freedom of religion. Do you think there are passages in the Quran that are now ignored because our cultural morals have changed? Like killing women who become non-believers?

 

[KWED]

In fact the account of the different stages in embryology as described by the Qur'an is virtually identical to that taught by Galen, writing in Turkey around 150 A.D, Either the author of the Qur'an knew this when writing the Qur'an,

One of Muhammad's companions, Al-Harith ibn Kalada, has previously studied at the "university" at Gundeshapur, where Galenic medicine was taught. One possible route of transmission is therefore established.

 

[joelr]

(1) For me, I can't believe that the whole thing started without a creator
When I see our universe, how great and complicated the human body is, see galaxies, ......etc.

Everything you see in the universe is the result of nature. Nature created solar systems, planets, galaxies, black holes, elements. We even know the big bang was at one time small enough to be quantum sized. The background microwave radiation agrees with what predicted quantum fluxuations in the energy would produce and are the reason matter is distributed unevenly and created galaxies and such. The quantum realm is ruled by probabilities. If something is probable it will eventually happen. All of this is natural processes. Did these natural processes evolve or develop from other natural things that we do not yet know? Probably. A magical deity who started everything doesn't make sense and has zero evidence.
All you see right now is that nature is vast, creative and mysterious. Filling up mysteries with deities from fiction doesn't make them real.

It is a simple fact of life, there is a maker for everything.
(2) I can't believe that the whole thing started with a single-celled life.
Educate me if I am mistaken, How did life start?

A single cell is very complex life. Self replicating compounds far pre-date that and is an entire field of study. If you study it you will understand. There are breakthroughs every year. In 2011 an enzyme copied a long RNA sequence -

"A big advance came earlier this year, when Philipp Holliger of the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, UK, and colleagues unveiled an RNA enzyme called tC19Z. It reliably copies RNA sequences up to 95 letters long, almost half as long as itself (Science, vol 332, p 209). To do this, tC19Z clamps onto the end of an RNA, attaches the correct nucleotide, then moves forward a step and adds another. “It still blows my mind that you can do something so complex with such a simple molecule,” Holliger says.

“It stills blows my mind that you can do something so complex with such a simple molecule”

So biologists are getting tantalisingly close to creating an RNA molecule, or perhaps a set of molecules, capable of replicating itself. That leaves another sticking point: where did the energy to drive this activity come from? There must have been some kind of metabolic process going on – but RNA does not look up to the job of running a full-blown metabolism."


Nucleobases and amino acids play a role in RNA, there has been breaks with these and all sorts of compounds. Every month there is a new paper.

Spontaneous Emergence of Self-Replicating Molecules Containing Nucleobases and Amino Acids
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.9b10796


Read more: First life: The search for the first replicator | New Scientist"

(3) While I believe in the big bang, I am firm that there is God that caused it
Point #1 still stands

No cosmologists is saying that. People thought God was behind every single gap in science. Even the planetary motion once had gaps and it was assumed God filled in the stuff they couldn't figure out.

Every fundamentalist in every religion says their God caused the big bang. Yet there is no evidence for any God. 2/3 of all religious believers think it's a different God who caused the big bang. No scientists think that.

 

[KWED]

If I remember, for a time the Islamic Caliphate was progressive and had the majority of trade route control but when that changed they became more fundamentalist. I need to learn more on that however.

The decline of the 'Golden Age of Islam' was a result of various elements and there is discussion over their relative importance, but one was a move away from genuine scholarly enquiry towards using scripture as the basis for all answers.

 

[KWED]

No, it all depends on your definition of "rape".
If you take it to mean "violent assault", then naturally, marriage doesn't come into it.

"Violent assault" is not how rape is legally defined. It is "sex without consent".
Good luck with using "but I didn't violently assault her" as a defence.

I really don't think that men who violently assault their wives are equivalent to those that have sexual intercourse with their wives "without consent".

Neither do I. But they are both "rapists".

A marriage contract means nothing to you, it seems.

Not really, because I understand that it does not affect how a couple feel about each other or behave towards each other.
Some marriages are violent, abusive, unfaithful, unhappy. Some unmarried couples are devoted, faithful, loving and caring.
So why is "marriage" important?

If a woman no longer respects her husband, she is entitled to divorce. She needs no reason. She has nothing to prove in Islam.

A woman has to apply for divorce, unlike the man who can simply declare it himself.

The whole point of having a marriage contract, is the concept of illicit relationships.

As you believe that sex is only permitted with a wife or female slave/captive, you therefore no not believe that consent is ever needed for sex. You reject the concept of "consensual sex" entirely.

You make silly arguments about men and women requiring consent, when they have already "signed a contract".

So you agree with Professor Brown that the concept of consent is irrelevant in a marriage or with female slaves. Marriage and ownership grant a man the right of sexual access.
Or in other words, you consider rape acceptable if the victim is your wife or slave.

You forgot to say whether you admit to holding this position to family, friends and colleagues. I'd imagine you probably keep it well hidden when not protected by online anonymity.

 

[KWED]

You make silly arguments about men and women requiring consent, when they have already "signed a contract".

Just thought I'd highlight this.
You believe consent is not needed for sex with a wife or female captive/slave.

And you claim that I'm morally bankrupt.

 

[joelr]

No, it all depends on your definition of "rape".
If you take it to mean "violent assault", then naturally, marriage doesn't come into it.

I really don't think that men who violently assault their wives are equivalent to those that have sexual intercourse with their wives "without consent".
A marriage contract means nothing to you, it seems.
If a woman no longer respects her husband, she is entitled to divorce. She needs no reason. She has nothing to prove in Islam.

The whole point of having a marriage contract, is the concept of illicit relationships.
Naturally, as a disbeliever, you argue against its significance.
You make silly arguments about men and women requiring consent, when they have already "signed a contract".

No you need consent. Islam has updated its beliefs on that. Now this was not always the case. So this is another demonstration that our morals are made up and change with society.
Consent, as a primary legal requirement, is a distinctly modern phenomenon born out of liberal societies’ abandonment of marriage as the defining pre-condition for lawful sexual intercourse.

"In sum, Islam has prohibited all forms of sexual violence against women, even if the sexual relationship has a lawful basis. It can be inferred from the Quran and Sunnah that consent was and is an important moral consideration in a healthy and lawful sexual relationship, as was understood by Al-Shafi’i and others. Consent, as a primary legal requirement, is a distinctly modern phenomenon born out of liberal societies’ abandonment of marriage as the defining pre-condition for lawful sexual intercourse. Transposing this new cultural conception of consent onto pre-modern societies and legal texts has led some writers, including some wayward Muslims, to inaccurately claim that sexual violence is approved by Islam."
Sexual consent, marriage, and concubines in Islam

If a wife refuses sex the husband cannot force her, but, the angels are P.O'd with her.

"

A husband has the right to enjoy his wife at any time no matter her circumstances… as long as he does not distract her from her religious obligations or harm her. He may not enjoy her in that case, since that is not living with them ‘honorably’ (4:19). If he does not distract her from those duties, nor harm her, then he may enjoy her.

Source: Kashāf al-Qinā’ 5/188

If a wife refuses sex with her husband without a good reason, and it causes him to spend the night angry with her, she is subject to moral condemnation by the angels but no allowance is given for him to force himself upon her. She is condemned by the angels if her unwarranted refusal causes her husband distress, but not if her refusal is benign. Scholars have noted that even though she is condemned by the angels, this does not give permission for the husband himself to condemn her.

Ibn Hajar commented on this tradition, writing:

وَأَمَّا حَدِيثُ الْبَابِ فَلَيْسَ فِيهِ إِلَّا أَنَّ الْمَلَائِكَةَ تَفْعَلُ ذَلِكَ وَلَا يَلْزَمُ مِنْهُ جَوَازُهُ عَلَى الْإِطْلَاقِ

As for the tradition on this topic, there is nothing in it but that the angels do that (cursing). It does not necessitate permission for him in any respect.

Source: Fatḥ al-Bārī 4897

Implicit in this interpretation is the prohibition of ‘marital rape’ or sexual violence against one’s wife. If it were lawful, one would presume that the Prophet (ṣ) or commentators like Ibn Hajar and Al-Buhuti would have explicitly allowed it as an option when discussing this very scenario. If he may not harm her or even curse her if she refuses to have sex, how then could he assault or rape her?

 

[KWED]

No you need consent. Islam has updated its beliefs on that. Now this was not always the case. So this is another demonstration that our morals are made up and change with society.
Consent, as a primary legal requirement, is a distinctly modern phenomenon born out of liberal societies’ abandonment of marriage as the defining pre-condition for lawful sexual intercourse.

"In sum, Islam has prohibited all forms of sexual violence against women, even if the sexual relationship has a lawful basis. It can be inferred from the Quran and Sunnah that consent was and is an important moral consideration in a healthy and lawful sexual relationship, as was understood by Al-Shafi’i and others. Consent, as a primary legal requirement, is a distinctly modern phenomenon born out of liberal societies’ abandonment of marriage as the defining pre-condition for lawful sexual intercourse. Transposing this new cultural conception of consent onto pre-modern societies and legal texts has led some writers, including some wayward Muslims, to inaccurately claim that sexual violence is approved by Islam."
Sexual consent, marriage, and concubines in Islam

If a wife refuses sex the husband cannot force her, but, the angels are P.O'd with her.

"

A husband has the right to enjoy his wife at any time no matter her circumstances… as long as he does not distract her from her religious obligations or harm her. He may not enjoy her in that case, since that is not living with them ‘honorably’ (4:19). If he does not distract her from those duties, nor harm her, then he may enjoy her.

Source: Kashāf al-Qinā’ 5/188

If a wife refuses sex with her husband without a good reason, and it causes him to spend the night angry with her, she is subject to moral condemnation by the angels but no allowance is given for him to force himself upon her. She is condemned by the angels if her unwarranted refusal causes her husband distress, but not if her refusal is benign. Scholars have noted that even though she is condemned by the angels, this does not give permission for the husband himself to condemn her.

Ibn Hajar commented on this tradition, writing:

وَأَمَّا حَدِيثُ الْبَابِ فَلَيْسَ فِيهِ إِلَّا أَنَّ الْمَلَائِكَةَ تَفْعَلُ ذَلِكَ وَلَا يَلْزَمُ مِنْهُ جَوَازُهُ عَلَى الْإِطْلَاقِ

As for the tradition on this topic, there is nothing in it but that the angels do that (cursing). It does not necessitate permission for him in any respect.

Source: Fatḥ al-Bārī 4897

Implicit in this interpretation is the prohibition of ‘marital rape’ or sexual violence against one’s wife. If it were lawful, one would presume that the Prophet (ṣ) or commentators like Ibn Hajar and Al-Buhuti would have explicitly allowed it as an option when discussing this very scenario. If he may not harm her or even curse her if she refuses to have sex, how then could he assault or rape her?

It's worth bearing in mind that "rape" does not have to involve physical violence or even force of any kind. Even when "consent" appears to have been given it may still count as rape.

Anyone who claims that consent is not required for sex, whatever the circumstances, is "morally bankrupt", to use one of @muhammad_isa's favourite expressions.

 

[muhammad_isa]

why is "marriage" important?

It promotes a society in which children are raised in a stable family structure.
The notion of "consensual sex" is immoral, as it does not outlaw sexual intercourse due purely from desire, with no contract outlining responsibilities.

You reject the concept of "consensual sex" entirely.

One cannot reject the concept in a society where marriage is no longer seen as righteousness.

 

[Birdnest]

Anyone who claims that consent is not required for sex, whatever the circumstances, is "morally bankrupt", to use one of @muhammad_isa's favourite expressions.

I think you're erring, with many others, in definitions. If a woman agrees to have intercourse with a man, then it is consensual, i.e. she gave her consent. I see you arguing over nothing.

 

[KWED]

It promotes a society in which children are raised in a stable family structure.

So any "stable family structure" is important. A couple in a long-term, monogamous relationship are just as legitimate as a couple in the same relationship but who went into an office and signed a paper.
I agree with you.

Conversely, a marriage which is dysfunctional, abusive, neglectful, etc, is unacceptable, despite being a "marriage".
Again, I agree with you.

The notion of "consensual sex" is immoral, as it does not outlaw sexual intercourse due purely from desire, with no contract outlining responsibilities.

You keep ignoring the fact that Islam allows men to have sex with female slaves and captives.

Also, if two adults decide to have a consensual one-night stand (using contraception), what "responsibilities" are there? What is "immoral" about it?
Are dogs and pigeons and salmon "immoral" when they mate?

One cannot reject the concept in a society where marriage is no longer seen as righteousness.

I consider marriage to be a perfectly legitimate way of confirming a relationship, but not the only one. And any sex in any relationship must be consensual.
You think that a husband doesn't need consent to have sex with a wife or captive/slave.

And yet you think I am "morally bankrupt" and you are a "moral millionaire".